Dataset Information

International survey among surgeons on laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the gap between guidelines and reality.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To assess the current approaches and perioperative treatments of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC) and to highlight similarities and differences with international guidelines and scientific evidence, we conducted a survey for surgeons across the globe.

Methods

All digestive and colorectal surgeons registered with the database of the Research Institute against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD) were invited to take part in the survey via email and through the social media networks of IRCAD.

Results

There were a total of 440 respondents from 78 countries. Most surgeons worked in the European region (38.6%) followed by the Americas (34.1%), the Eastern Mediterranean region (13.0%), the South-East Asian region (5.9%), the Western Pacific region (4.8%), and Africa (3.2%) respectively. Over half of the respondents performed less than 25% of right hemicolectomies laparoscopically where 4 ports are usually used by 68% of the surgeons. The medial-to-lateral, vessel-first approach is the approach most commonly used (74.1%). The most common extraction site was through a midline incision (53%) and an abdominal drain tube is routinely used by 52% of the surgeons after surgery. A total of 68.6% of the responding surgeons perform the majority of the anastomoses extracorporeally. Finally, we found that the majority of responders (60.7%) routinely used mechanical bowel preparations prior to LRHC.

Conclusion

Regarding several topics related to LRHC care, a discrepancy was observed between the current medical practice and the recommendations from RCTs and international guidelines and significant regional differences were observed.

SUBMITTER: Al-Taher M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8782220 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared. RESULTS:A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients' baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD - 23.49, 95%CI - 36.71 to - 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 0.76, 95% `CI - 1.07 to - 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD - 8.46, 95% CI - 14.59 to - 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD - 1.60, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD - 0.98, 95% CI - 1.79 to - 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.93 to - 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group. CONCLUSION:SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Project description:Although conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is widely used today, there remain many technical challenges especially for right colon cancer in obese patients. Herein, we develop a novel hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with complete mesocolic excision (CME), D3 lymphadenectomy, and a total "no-touch" isolation technique (HALS-CME) in right hemicolectomy to overcome these issues. According to previous clinic practice, this novel procedure is not only feasible and safe but has several technical merits. However, the feasibility, short-term minimally invasive virtues, long-term oncological superiority, and potential total "no-touch" isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME should be confirmed by a prospective randomized controlled trial.This is a single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned to the HALS-CME group or to the laparoscopic surgery with CME, D3 lymphadenectomy, and total "no-touch" isolation technique (LAP-CME) group, or to conventional laparoscopic surgery with CME and D3 lymphadenectomy (cLAP) group at a 1:1:1 ratio using a centralized randomization list. Primary endpoints include safety, efficacy, and being oncologically clear, and 3-year disease-free, progression-free, and overall survival. Second endpoints include operative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and incision length), pathologic evaluation (grading the plane of surgery, length of proximal and distal resection margins, distance between the tumor and the central arterial high tie, distance between the nearest bowel wall and the same high tie, area of mesentery resected, width of the chain of lymph-adipose tissue, length of the central lymph-adipose chain, number of harvested lymph nodes), and postoperative outcomes (pain intensity, postoperative inflammatory and immune responses, postoperative recovery).This trial will provide valuable clinical evidence for the feasibility, safety, and potential total "no-touch" isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME for right hemicolectomy. The hypothesis is that HALS-CME is feasible for the radical D3 resection of right colon cancer and offers short-term safety and long-term oncological superiority compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02625272 . Registered on 8 December 2015.

Project description:Background For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the intermediate approach is commonly employed. However, this approach possesses several disadvantages. In this study, we compare priority access to the small bowel mesentery and the intermediate approach. Methods The clinical data of 196 patients admitted to the First Hospital of Chongqing Medical University for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and divided into the small bowel mesenteric priority access and traditional intermediate access groups. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative anal venting time, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications were compared between the two different approaches. Results In total, 81 cases of small bowel mesenteric priority access and 115 cases of intermediate approach for right hemi-colonic radical resection were compared. The operative time was 191.98 ± 46.05 and 209.48 ± 46.08 min in the small bowel mesenteric priority access and intermediate access groups, respectively; the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative bleeding and lymph node clearance. However, the scatter plot analysis showed that severe intraoperative bleeding was relatively less frequent in the small mesenteric priority access group, compared with that in the intermediate approach group. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the first exhaust and defecation times, hospital stay after operation, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative complication between the two groups. Conclusion In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach can significantly shorten the operation time compared with the intermediate approach. It can reduce intraoperative bleeding and the operation is simple and safe to perform, making it suitable for less experienced surgeons. Therefore, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach has the potential to be a suitable alternative and deserves further clinical promotion and application.